Another nail in the coffin for science

veyaluch, my sentiments exactly! I'm not the least bit science minded at all and don't join this topic, although I read it and find it interesting. BUT I do have a brain to think and reason with and agree with you and canuck.

When you said you aren't the least bit science minded I take that to mean you have not the least bit interest and are scientifically illiterate and that's a shame because science is a great deal of fun. I also have to point out that simply sharing the same points of view does not mean one iota those points of view are truthful. so you claim you have a brain to think an reason with, ok. now here's something for you to think about and reason over.

In prehistory, CO2 and warming went in lock-step

French researchers said they had answered a riddle that has perplexed scientists. The question arises from bubbles of atmospheric air, trapped in cores of ice drilled from Antarctica that date back to the last deglaciation, which ended some 10,000 years ago. These tiny bubbles are closely scrutinised, for they contain carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas behind global warming. The higher or lower the CO2, according to the conventional benchmark, the greater or lower the atmospheric temperature. The anomaly is this: the CO2 in the bubbles do not correspond to the level of warming indicated by the surrounding snowfall of that time. Climate skeptics argued that this showed the CO2 rose after Earth's atmosphere warming.

Because I am a sensitive soul, I won’t provide the link to the report of 40,000 elephants being shot in Africa because some of these fun people think it would help the environment.

Canuck, you are willfully and idiot and stupid, perhaps unwillfully. I don't know which. Do you know why? Because I'm referring to pure science, not applied science, you know the kind of pure science that you were shown back in school or the kind you can read about on such sites a space.com or physics.org...

The figure of 40000 you are referring to is from this fellow who certainly was an idiot and stupid.

This Man Shot 40,000 Elephants Before He Figured Out That Herds Of Cows Can Save The Planet

But unlike you he learned that what he thought was true was in reality a false belief exactly like your position against AGW.

C'mon canuke you got to come up with a better argument. It would help your cause if you were to address the link in post 16. But I suspect you'll either ignore it or just prattle on they are part of the global warming scam.

P.S. Applied science is fun too, people just love there Kindles and Ipads, smart phones...

Because I am a sensitive soul, I won’t provide the link to the report of 40,000 elephants being shot in Africa because some of these fun people think it would help the environment.

Canuck, you are willfully and idiot and stupid, perhaps unwillfully. I don't know which. Do you know why? Because I'm referring to pure science, not applied science, you know the kind of pure science that you were shown back in school or the kind you can read about on such sites a space.com or physics.org...

The figure of 40000 you are referring to is from this fellow who certainly was an idiot and stupid.

This Man Shot 40,000 Elephants Before He Figured Out That Herds Of Cows Can Save The Planet

But unlike you he learned that what he thought was true was in reality a false belief exactly like your position against AGW.

C'mon canuke you got to come up with a better argument. It would help your cause if you were to address the link in post 16. But I suspect you'll either ignore it or just prattle on they are part of the global warming scam.

P.S. Applied science is fun too, people just love there Kindles and Ipads, smart phones...

Yet, you don't see anything wrong with your warmist collaborators logging 4,600 square miles of forest, and destroying an entire eco-system.

Because I am a sensitive soul, I won’t provide the link to the report of 40,000 elephants being shot in Africa because some of these fun people think it would help the environment.

Canuck, you are willfully and idiot and stupid, perhaps unwillfully. I don't know which. Do you know why? Because I'm referring to pure science, not applied science, you know the kind of pure science that you were shown back in school or the kind you can read about on such sites a space.com or physics.org...

The figure of 40000 you are referring to is from this fellow who certainly was an idiot and stupid.

This Man Shot 40,000 Elephants Before He Figured Out That Herds Of Cows Can Save The Planet

But unlike you he learned that what he thought was true was in reality a false belief exactly like your position against AGW.

C'mon canuke you got to come up with a better argument. It would help your cause if you were to address the link in post 16. But I suspect you'll either ignore it or just prattle on they are part of the global warming scam.

P.S. Applied science is fun too, people just love there Kindles and Ipads, smart phones...

Yet, you don't see anything wrong with your warmist collaborators logging 4,600 square miles of forest, and destroying an entire eco-system.

How's that sciency fun thing working out for you?

Don't change the subject or ignore what I've said. Logging is an entirely different topic.

Because I am a sensitive soul, I won’t provide the link to the report of 40,000 elephants being shot in Africa because some of these fun people think it would help the environment.

Canuck, you are willfully and idiot and stupid, perhaps unwillfully. I don't know which. Do you know why? Because I'm referring to pure science, not applied science, you know the kind of pure science that you were shown back in school or the kind you can read about on such sites a space.com or physics.org...

The figure of 40000 you are referring to is from this fellow who certainly was an idiot and stupid.

This Man Shot 40,000 Elephants Before He Figured Out That Herds Of Cows Can Save The Planet

But unlike you he learned that what he thought was true was in reality a false belief exactly like your position against AGW.

C'mon canuke you got to come up with a better argument. It would help your cause if you were to address the link in post 16. But I suspect you'll either ignore it or just prattle on they are part of the global warming scam.

P.S. Applied science is fun too, people just love there Kindles and Ipads, smart phones...

Yet, you don't see anything wrong with your warmist collaborators logging 4,600 square miles of forest, and destroying an entire eco-system.

How's that sciency fun thing working out for you?

Don't change the subject or ignore what I've said. Logging is an entirely different topic.

I think I see your strategy. You are trying to denigrate other areas of science because the data produced by climate science doesn't agree with your ideology against AGW. By doing so you hope to persuade others to rally behind the climate denier ideology. Is that correct ? But that's not a winning strategy. You must present climate data that that strongly contradicts AGW. Which you have not done. No matter how loudly you and your fellow climate deniers shout it's all a scam doesn't make it true without data.

Something new to ponder. It concerns the latest on Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph

We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It

New research takes the deepest dive ever into historic climate records.

Back in 1999 Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann released the climate change movement's most potent symbol: The "hockey stick," a line graph of global temperature over the last 1,500 years that shows an unmistakable, massive uptick in the twentieth century when humans began to dump large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It's among the most compelling bits of proof out there that human beings are behind global warming, and as such has become a target on Mann's back for climate denialists looking to draw a bead on scientists.Now it's gotten a makeover: A study published in Science reconstructs global temperatures further back than ever before -- a full 11,300 years. The new analysis finds that the only problem with Mann's hockey stick was that its handle was about 9,000 years too short.Marcott's team used ocean records to reconstruct global climate further back in time than ever before. (Science)

To be clear, the study finds that temperatures in about a fifth of this historical period were higher than they are today. But the key, said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University, is that temperatures are shooting through the roof faster than we've ever seen."What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.Previous historic climate reconstructions typically extended no further back than 2,000 years, roughly as far back as you can go by examining climate indicators from tree rings, as Mann did. To dig even deeper, Marcott's team looked at objects collected from more than 70 sites worldwide, primarily fossilized ocean shells that have been unearthed by oceanographers. Existing research has shown that certain chemical tracers in the shells link directly to temperature at the time they were created; by studying oxygen isotopes in the fossilized plankton shown below, for example, scientists can deduce that it formed its shell at a time when Greenland was fully without ice. Marcott's task was to compile enough such samples to represent the whole planet over his chosen timeframe.Read more:http://m.theatlantic...rove-it/273870/

That fun sciency thingy you have seems not to be working too well for you.

Otherwise you would already know that the material you posted above has already been thoroughly discredited, and not only because it was written by the original global warming fraudsters. Similarly you would also know that ice core data is a source of great controversy, with their meaning reflecting the political predisposoitions of the analyist more than any form of objective sceince.

However, if you are lacking in entertainment, I suggest that you go to Google and search on "ipcc admits no global warming".

That fun sciency thingy you have seems not to be working too well for you.

Otherwise you would already know that the material you posted above has already been thoroughly discredited, and not only because it was written by the original global warming fraudsters. Similarly you would also know that ice core data is a source of great controversy, with their meaning reflecting the political predisposoitions of the analyist more than any form of objective sceince.

However, if you are lacking in entertainment, I suggest that you go to Google and search on "ipcc admits no global warming".

I see you're cherry picking as usual, ignoring facts you don't agree with as usual and generally making a poor attempt at misdirection as usual. Are you smart enough [ perhap you think I'm dumb] to realize I can fact check all your references, aren't you? Which of course I did. So while you are likely ignoring this link I'll post it for anyone else who wants to read it. There are an abundance of links within the article further detailing why climate denialists are wrong and where they get it wrong.

Skepticalscience:As we have discussed many times at Skeptical Science, although the warming of global surface air temperatures has slowed over the past decade due to a preponderance of La Niña events, the rate of heat accumulation on Earth has not slowed at all. In fact over the past 15 years, the planet has accumulated more heat than during the previous 15 years (Figure 1). That's global warming.Did Murdoch's The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?http://www.skeptical...al-warming.html

McIntyre found that Marcott and his colleagues used previously published ocean core data, but have altered the dates represented by the cores, in some cases by as much as 1,000 years. This chart shows how critical Marcott’s re-dating was to his conclusion that temperatures spiked in unprecedented fashion in the 20th century. The red line shows ocean core temperatures using the original dates under which the data were published: it shows cooling during the 20th century. The black line shows the same data, only with the dates changed by Marcott. It shows temperatures rising significantly, rather than declining...

The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10). Only three cores contributed to the final value of the reconstruction with published dates ("pubend" less than 10): the MD01-2421 splice, OCE326-GGC30 and M35004-4. Two of these cores have very negative values. Marcott et al re-dated both of these cores so that neither contributed to the closing period: the MD01-2421 splice to a fraction of a year prior to 1940, barely missing eligibility; OCE326-GGC30 is re-dated 191 years earlier – into the 18th century. Re-populating the closing date are 5 cores with published coretops earlier than AD10, in some cases much earlier. The coretop of MD95-2043, for example, was published as 10th century, but was re-dated by Marcott over 1000 years later to “0 BP”. MD95-2011 and MD-2015 were redated by 510 and 690 years respectively. All five re-dated cores contributing to the AD1940 reconstruction had positive values.

McIntyre found that Marcott and his colleagues used previously published ocean core data, but have altered the dates represented by the cores, in some cases by as much as 1,000 years. This chart shows how critical Marcott’s re-dating was to his conclusion that temperatures spiked in unprecedented fashion in the 20th century. The red line shows ocean core temperatures using the original dates under which the data were published: it shows cooling during the 20th century. The black line shows the same data, only with the dates changed by Marcott. It shows temperatures rising significantly, rather than declining...

The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10). Only three cores contributed to the final value of the reconstruction with published dates ("pubend" less than 10): the MD01-2421 splice, OCE326-GGC30 and M35004-4. Two of these cores have very negative values. Marcott et al re-dated both of these cores so that neither contributed to the closing period: the MD01-2421 splice to a fraction of a year prior to 1940, barely missing eligibility; OCE326-GGC30 is re-dated 191 years earlier – into the 18th century. Re-populating the closing date are 5 cores with published coretops earlier than AD10, in some cases much earlier. The coretop of MD95-2043, for example, was published as 10th century, but was re-dated by Marcott over 1000 years later to “0 BP”. MD95-2011 and MD-2015 were redated by 510 and 690 years respectively. All five re-dated cores contributing to the AD1940 reconstruction had positive values.

McIntyre found that Marcott and his colleagues used previously published ocean core data, but have altered the dates represented by the cores, in some cases by as much as 1,000 years. This chart shows how critical Marcott’s re-dating was to his conclusion that temperatures spiked in unprecedented fashion in the 20th century. The red line shows ocean core temperatures using the original dates under which the data were published: it shows cooling during the 20th century. The black line shows the same data, only with the dates changed by Marcott. It shows temperatures rising significantly, rather than declining...

The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10). Only three cores contributed to the final value of the reconstruction with published dates ("pubend" less than 10): the MD01-2421 splice, OCE326-GGC30 and M35004-4. Two of these cores have very negative values. Marcott et al re-dated both of these cores so that neither contributed to the closing period: the MD01-2421 splice to a fraction of a year prior to 1940, barely missing eligibility; OCE326-GGC30 is re-dated 191 years earlier – into the 18th century. Re-populating the closing date are 5 cores with published coretops earlier than AD10, in some cases much earlier. The coretop of MD95-2043, for example, was published as 10th century, but was re-dated by Marcott over 1000 years later to “0 BP”. MD95-2011 and MD-2015 were redated by 510 and 690 years respectively. All five re-dated cores contributing to the AD1940 reconstruction had positive values.

With a cursory glance I see no critique of the fossil data, just more yammering about core samples, why?

Why do you trust Mcintyre? A man that has no expertise in climate science.

If climate denialists could get there criticisms published in Science that would indicate there's merit to their criticisms.I have to ask this question. Why are denialists so adamant that humans can't change the climate?

And yet, you still see no problem with your warmist collaborators destroying an entire eco system by turning the forest into woodchips.

Didn't I say logging is an entirely different issue. Keep to the subject of AGW.If you like to gripe about deforestation then go ahead because I don't like it either, but deforestation has nothing to do with AGW it has an economic cause.

This is before we even mention the local climate change that will be induced by the de-vegetation, or the accelerated desertification of downwind ecosystems. But hey, that fun sciencey thingy you have must give you that warm inner glow that you get when you talk about saving the world.

Luckily, when you are saving the world you don’t need to actually know anything.

Desertification caused by drought or water levels dropping in aquifers all seem to be caused by direct human activity or indirectly through climate change. It's not the environmentalists that are causing damage, it is caused by large corporations seeking profit even the activities of daily living or for profit, for example the deforestation of Afghanistan. http://www.afghan-we...orestation.html and http://www.ciesin.co...93/002-193.htmlPlease don't assume you know anything about me. I'm just a voice.I have a better grasp of what's occurring with the environment that you accuse me of not having.

Again you've sidestepped the question I asked. So I'll ask again and maybe you'll be brave enough to answer. Why are you so afraid to at least acknowledge that the trends in climate could be caused by human activity?

I suggest that you re-read your own post. Then find someone who actually knows something to explain your own post to you.

The answers to all of your own questions are in your own posts.

Though you still refuse to explain your fears for AGW being true you did thankfully after all admit for all to read you don't know anything and in a round about way admit climate change is human caused.